In the proceedings instituted in the Pennsylvania court by Mrs. Matthews to regain custody of the child, the court made the following finding of fact:
'The relator now resides with her father in Washington and her father, John A. Lutz, has testified that he is willing to provide a respectable home for the child is unquestioned, but it is just as clear that the respondent father is equally able to provide a suitable home for his child, and in an environment that is more conducive to the proper development of said child, and we consider the rights of the father in the instant case to be superior to that of the grandfather. While it is true that the mother is intelligent and respectable, so is the father, and we find from the evidence that the father is better able financially to care for said child. He resides in said apartment with his sister and her husband thus providing a competent person to take care of said minor child while the father is attending to his business. The mother has been employed from time to time in various positions in Washington, D.C. At the time of the hearing she was out of employment and testified that she had assurance of future employment.
'We may be old-fashioned but we still maintain in the absence of abuse or unjust treatment, the wife should make her home with her husband and child. We feel that the future of any child is best assured in a home with both parents when harmony prevails.'
The Court further finds that since the order of the Pennsylvania court, the petitioner moved from the apartment which he and the child had been occupying with his sister and her husband to another apartment where he lives alone with the child. This child is seven years old, and during the day while the petitioner is engaged with his employment, there is no one to supervise or look after the child or its associates, and otherwise provide for proper care and home training.
The Court further finds that both the paternal and maternal grandparents of the child reside in Washington D.C., and that Mrs. Matthews lives with her parents in a good residential district of the city. Further that Mrs. Matthews is a fit and proper person to have the care and custody of said child.
It is to the best interest and welfare of this child that he be placed in the custody of the defendant, Edith L. Matthews.
Conclusions of Law.
1. In view of the substantial change in the conditions surrounding the child since the order of the Pennsylvania court that order is not res adjudicata. Heavrin v. Spicer, 49 App.D.C. 337, 265 F. 977.
2. The paramount consideration in awarding the custody of infants is their permanent advantage and welfare. Beall v. Bibb, 19 App.D.C. 311; Heavrin v. Spicer, Supra; Commonwealth ex rel. v. Daven, et al., 298 Pa. 416, 148 A. 524.
3. The defendant, Edith L. Matthews, is entitled to the custody of the said child, Robert Stanley Matthews.
It is ordered that the writ be discharged and that said child be committed to the custody of its mother, the defendant, Edith L. Matthews.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.